Carn:Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?

Gentle reminder of the mass knife attack that happened in China on the same day. It had more victims but no one died.

Everyone here in the U.S. wants the 100% answer and they give up the partial answers to get it. Solar energy won't totally fix the oil problem... so fark it. Getting money out of politics won't 100% fix the problem with crooked government... so fark it. Getting assault weapons out of people's hands won't 100% stop the killing... so fark it. For god's sake....

Saners:I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.

Thanks for the irrelevant data and incorrect conclusions drawn thereon.

While it is tragic I honestly just don't care that much when some arsehole beats his wife or kid to death because it has no chance of affecting me. This kind of event happens much more often but presents as a whole zero danger to the rest of us.

Once he's done hammering her skull in he's DONE killing. Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.

I do care about individuals having weapons capable of wiping out whole crowds of people in a short period of time and with high effectiveness. While folks don't go crazy and shoot up crowds very often, when they DO, the only limiting factor on how many they can kill is the tools they have at their disposal. So controlling those tools that serve ZERO purpose other than to allow mass murder to be performed more easily is not a bad idea.

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...

I was stating that I continually hear the "People only use guns to kill each other, there is no other legitimate use for them" claim such as you made side by side with people on the Left saying "Nobody's calling for a "complete" ban on guns" claim. In other words, by implying that you see them only used to slaughter people, or practice for slaughtering people, you are implying that they should all be banned, and are therefore, according to your other buddies, "Nobody".

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

I said the same thing too, and I'm not against banning all firearms. The world isn't always black and white, and we don't all fit into nice and neat categories like your brain would prefer.

It's a simple statement that you have now attached other meanings to. Comparing a tool used exclusively as a weapon to a tool that is used for many purposes (and who's main purpose is not a violent one) is very disingenuous.

CPennypacker:Mikey1969: from my blood: I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...1) Used a bomb.2) Poisoned the water supply.3) Used a car to run through the playground.4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

The irony here is that suddenly the Right cares about mental health, while the Left thinks it's just being used as an excuse. I've never heard the Left more rabid about ignoring mental health issues before.

"Guns arent the problem, mental health is" is not expressing concern about mental health issues. It is deflection. Support healthcare reform or posit some tangible measures to address our deficit of proper mental health care in this country if you care about mental health.

How about we stop making everything binary? It's a sign of a poor intellect.

In reality, mental health issues are the main problem.

Poor laws and poor gun policies are also a very large problem, which in this case mingled with the former main problem.

Uranus Is Huge!:Also, more people in the US died in meat processing accidents than with fully automatic M-16s. Thererfore, canned ham and hot dogs should be banned and confiscated and the M-16 should be made availabe to all patriotic American patriots.

Jared Loughner had no idea where to get those millions of mags you're ranting about. So he bought one in a store. It's not rocket science you know. A lunatic may not be thinking straight when he snaps. Would a ban keep gang members from getting them? No. Would it keep some of the nuts from getting them, quickly and easily, when they snap? Yes.

We have the right to a well-regulated militia. It's time for some meaningful regulation...

Uranus Is Huge!:Please tell me all about the futile attempts at prohibition that I have been posting about. Hint: You won't find any because they only exist in your mind.

You have a reading comprehension problem. The government's record on "solving problems" through prohibition of desirable things is an abysmal failure. Attempting to solve complex social problems through prohibition is futile.

Carn:Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country.

Yes, they are. And yet traffic is still the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45. It has been for decades. It looks like your reliance on "regulation" is a failure.

Also, by assuming control over these areas, the government is responsible for happens. That's how it works. If you are in control of something, then you are ethically responsible for the outcome.

This is a government that you're participating in, by the way, even if it's only on the level of being a good little drone and a shiat-disturber on the Internet. By demanding political action over something that kills fewer people than traffic collisions, which are preventable, then you are in effect advocating that the government allow 35,000 traffic deaths per year to occur. You are advocating that the government waste time and energy by addressing a less significant problem, and thus necessarily ignoring a more threatening and deadly problem.

But you don't get political traction out of traffic issues, do you? It's too banal and ordinary. Dealing with it doesn't make you feel quite so energized and powerful, does it? Not compared to really sticking it to your political opponents.

No, saving more lives is too mundane for you. You're too busy agitating for an expansion of government control into new areas where it can be completely ineffective.

Phinn:JungleBoogie: Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

----------------

This is the Leftist mindset in a nutshell.

People are not mechanical objects. They adapt. You simply cannot control people the way you can control the way that an airplane is constructed. If you think you can "ban" something, take a look at every other attempt at banning desirable things. Look at your ideology's record of abysmal failure.

Besides, where is all of your concern about avoidable deaths related to cars instead of airplanes? I don't see a massive political push to overhaul the mechanical standards, rules of use, procedures, training, enforcement and other design features of the traffic system.

Meanwhile 100 people per day are dying. Children are being buried. Limbs are amputated. Head injuries. People disabled for life. But I guess those deaths aren't politically valuable to you.

You ignore those deaths, just so you neener-neener your political opponents, rally around your vacationing President and cheer him on. Does it make you feel warm in your naughty place to win your petty political victories?

How can you be so callous?

You're so full of shiat. Good idea pointing out cars and airplanes, two of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. Let's apply some similar rules to gun ownership shall we? We'll start with:

And HERE is why I don't buy the "I don't see anybody here calling for a complete ban on guns" bullshiat response.

Was this a reply to the above? It doesn't seem to contradict it at all...

I was stating that I continually hear the "People only use guns to kill each other, there is no other legitimate use for them" claim such as you made side by side with people on the Left saying "Nobody's calling for a "complete" ban on guns" claim. In other words, by implying that you see them only used to slaughter people, or practice for slaughtering people, you are implying that they should all be banned, and are therefore, according to your other buddies, "Nobody".

That's a lot to surmise from one short sentence... and you've made an incorrect series of assumptions.

It was a parody of the idea of banning hammers, which would leave us no means of assembling bird houses and such. Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.

Karac:DoBeDoBeDo: (6) "Pistol grip" includes any feature of a rifle,shotgun, or pistol capable of functioning as a protrudinggrip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.

LOL WAT???????

That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:[photos.gunsamerica.com image 850x459]

I know what the descption is, but a pistol grip is the grip back by the trigger, you know the one that looks like the grip of a pistol, hence pistol grip.

A fore grip is called a fore grip, because it's a grip on the forward part of the gun.

I know it's hard, especially for politicians, to understand that words mean things, but they do!

When you write legislation without even a basic knowledge of a subject you are, in fact, much more dangerous to society as a whole than Adam Lanza ever was. The pen is far mightier that the sword (or gun in this case).

That means something like the forward grip on the upper rifle in this picture:[photos.gunsamerica.com image 850x459]

It just speaks to the people who are writing the legislation. They don't even try to understand or consult with those that do. A pistol grip is on the Shooting Hand (period), the Fore Grip is used by the off hand.

The fact that they get it so ass-backwards is what annoys some people, myself included.If you want to effect the lives of millions of people, at least get educated in regards to the task you are attempting to perform.

mongbiohazard:sn't that what you're trying to do though? School shootings are horrible, but statistically speaking they're exceptional events. How many people die a year in school shootings vs. how many die from other things like.... Medical errors? More run-of-the-mill murders? Traffic fatalities? Domestic violence? Accidental falls? The flu?

Airplane accidents are pretty rare too. But whenever one of those happens, the NTSB gets involved, figures out what went wrong, and issues directives to remedy or mitigate the causative factor(s).

They don't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, sh-t happens" as is going on with the firearms massacres.

Kazrath:LRA61380: That's just a shiatty comparison, not a false equivalence.

And the title is shiat also. I bet there is probably as much or more gun use than hammer use in this country. I own 1 hammer and 3 guns. I have hurt myself with a hammer many more times than I have with a firearm. (And yes a firearm can hurt you without it actually hitting you with a bullet for the uninformed gun haters)

Great comparison. How many times a year does someone accidentally smash their brains in with a hammer versus the number of accidental maiming or death by firearm?

Yes, guns are designed to kill people, and that's their only real function. But homicide is not always wrongful. It's perfectly ethical and right to kill anyone who is trying to kill (or seriously injure) you (or trying to kill or seriously injure a third party).

It's not merely wrong-but-excusable. It's completely right, just and proper.

d23:Carn: Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?

Gentle reminder of the mass knife attack that happened in China on the same day. It had more victims but no one died.

Everyone here in the U.S. wants the 100% answer and they give up the partial answers to get it. Solar energy won't totally fix the oil problem... so fark it. Getting money out of politics won't 100% fix the problem with crooked government... so fark it. Getting assault weapons out of people's hands won't 100% stop the killing... so fark it. For god's sake....

I agree, it's baffling. Also, making any suggestions about possible measures that could be taken usually results in either "Unconstitutional", "Wouldn't work", or a combination of both. Or you are called a coward that is afraid of inanimate objects. Which is ironic.

dittybopper:IamAwake: JungleBoogie: Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

it's such a shame that Reagan shut down all those places which used to treat, or otherwise house, the insane - so that he could free up the money to buy bigger guns. Oh well, nothing we do now has future consequences.

Ummm, that happened before Reagan.

The courts did it, but Carter (actually a Rosalynn Carter project) came up with a plan to greatly increase community mental health funding, so that the deinstitutionalized could still get treatment. And one of the first things Reagan did was to end federal support to state community health programs. So, yeah, still fair to blame Reagan for nuts wandering around on the streets everywhere.

The primary use of a semi automatic sporting rifle is hunting and target practice.

Assualt weapons are fully automatic and designed for killing brown people from oil rich nations.

Civilian Jeeps are made for the everyday street and offroad sports.

Military Use Jeeps are made for war and armed to kill brown people in oil rich nations.

All of them kill. Regardless of design.

Do you know you can kill someone without tools? Better turn yourself in Bro.

That probably works most of the time when you're talking to someone who doesn't know anything about guns. The only thing you can use a 5.56 assault rifle to hunt is maybe coyotes or other varmints. That doesn't explain why so many people own them.

I love how most of the gun nut arguments are just lies and straw men about the nature of the weapon at issue.

"hey idiot, you know that I can kill someone with my bare hands, right? Therefore, if guns didn't exist, then everyone who has ever used a gun to murder someone would have murdered that person with their bare hands instead. I'm so smart and clever, and just destroyed any conceivable argument for common-sense gun regulations."

the_geek:CPennypacker: Notice how none of them, even the craziest one you could find, has a higher death toll than Newtown. But I guess you're done, though. Because you "proved me wrong." So good job. Strong point.

In principle you're right but your argument is stupid. Newton is what, the 2nd highest kill count of a mass shooting ever in this country? Okay so if hammer killings have fewer deaths per incident but happen more frequently so the net number of deaths per year is higher then hammers are worse.

The whole hammer/club argument is stupid, but you made it even more stupider.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. You keep making the argument that violence happens. The article, and many in this thread, keep trying to falsely compare hammers/clubs/cleavers with guns as somehow being equal in their ability to commit mass carnage. His point that the shooting death in Newton and others like it have a higher bodycount than similar attacks done with different weapons does in fact prove that if we had a choice, we'd want all psychos to go on their rampages with hammers instead of guns. You are most likely correct that removing some or all guns wouldn't get rid of the violence. The point you and others are repeatedly and purposefully missing in this thread and others is that having a rash of hammer attacks is better than having a rash of mass shootings. This doesn't take away from the fact that, like others have said in this and other threads, we need to address mental health care as lack thereof clearly is part of or the major part of this problem. However, so are our extremely lax laws and regulations, and something needs to be done to address all gun violence, but especially mass shootings.

Short and sweet version: You are a psycho. There is a hammer and an AR-15 with 3 full magazines on the table. There are also plans for making a bomb which would take weeks to build, and it's not clear whether you'd be able to acquire all the ingredients nor successfully assemble the bomb nor carry out the attack. You're about to go postal. You can only pick up one. Which do you take?

The biggest problem I see with current gun-control debate is that it's tinkering around the margins, without addressing the main source of gun-related deaths that could be affected by gun control. Namely, fights that escalate into pistol fights. That's most of your gun deaths, right there. Guys, generally with criminal histories, who use handguns to finish an argument, or preemptively shoot someone they think is a threat. Your typical assault leaves the victim bruised up. Your typical handgun assault has a MUCH higher death rate, often with no deadlier intent.

The most effective legislation to respond to that has been full enforcement of bans on carrying guns, as in Virginia's Project Exile. Basically, if you are caught with an illegal gun, you get five years in the federal pen, full stop. And cops are trained to spot concealed carry and make sure you have a permit. The result when they did it in Richmond was that bad guys were less likely to carry guns in their daily life, and less likely to shoot each other up if they had a dispute.

Legislation to ban certain cosmetic features of semi-auto rifles is less than useless. Even the high-cap magazine ban is largely meaningless; a spree killer could just carry twice as many 10-round mags, or multiple guns. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to control what really kills people, which are concealable guns carried by scumbags.

JungleBoogie:Don't get me wrong, more firearms regulation is absolutely necessary, as the absurd number of firearms murders in the US indicates, but it's appearing to me that the most important underlying issue is identifying and holding/detaining the insane and homicidal.

it's such a shame that Reagan shut down all those places which used to treat, or otherwise house, the insane - so that he could free up the money to buy bigger guns. Oh well, nothing we do now has future consequences.

The trend of violence, with a gun or feet or a hammer...has been going down bother during and after the assault weapons ban. So, lets treat this like global warming and not use one day of really bad snow to decide policy.

CPennypacker:dittybopper: cefm: Plus it's impossible to go on a hammering spree - people can run away from you and 2 or more can stop you with their bare hands.

That's not necessarily true. There have been a number of spree killers who have used "melee weapons" meaning things like axes, knives, hammers, clubs, etc. It's actually a relatively common method of spree killing in countries where firearms access is completely banned, like China.

Yeah that year long "rampage" is certainly comparable to spree killings that take out more people in a few minutes before the person can be stopped.

I think you should start a fight with the local representatives of your tyrannical government immediately. It's the only way. Go do it. Do it now.

Faster. Get up and do it. You're the BEST! AROUND! Nothing's gonna ever keep you down! They drew first blood. C'mon! Welcome to the party, pal! Make my day! Say hello to your little friend! You don't have time to bleed! Fill your hands, you son of a b*tch! You're too old for this sh*t! Yipee Kai Yai, motherf*cker!

If he didn't have the gun he would have...1) Used a bomb.2) Poisoned the water supply.3) Used a car to run through the playground.4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

Gun control is logical. Not allowing the general public to purchase say rocket launchers or automatic weapons is logical. Banning "guns" in general is stupid. There is no solution to stopping violence. It isn't possible. How do you stop someone who does not fear death or any other consequences?

dittybopper:FitzShivering: dittybopper: Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Slaves2Darkness: Yes, but how many hammers have killed 20 6 year olds in less then two hours?

Hammers? None. Gasoline, knives, and tractors, on the other hand....

Sounds pretty inefficient. Those guys should have used guns to increase their kill ratio.

Actually, guns are among the least efficient means. Arson and explosives are the most efficient. See: Bath School Disaster and Happy Land Fire

As long as your efficiency calculation does not involve the difficulty of performing the action effectively.

How hard is it to block the exits of a building and set it on fire with a couple gallons of gasoline?

With people inside of it? Without being interrupted? And easily carrying the gasoline around? And then lightning it and hoping it does what you want? Well, no, it doesn't require a super genius. On the other hand, it's far more time consuming, complicated, and likely to fail than hiding a gun on you and shooting everyone.

Please understand, I'm not entirely opposed to guns, nor do I want them all confiscated. I own more than one, and I used to target shoot a lot. But, that said, I think some of the arguments made on both sides of this debate are just horribly stupid.

We do have a problem that we need to address as a country. This is one of those issues that if we all chose to debate intelligently and with actual facts, we could probably come to a reasonable consensus. Would it make everyone happy? No. But that's what a consensus normally is.

I could categorically come up with an argument over something you "don't need" to remove every single of of your civil rights in the name of "security" and "what if" and "just in case on person might want to do something evil with blah, blah, blah".Your position is all too easy to take and feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.

You can't have it both ways.Just because you're absolutey terrified of evil menacing black guns does not give you the right to take away my civil rights to not be afraid of an inanimate object.

Go hide in your little gun free hole and pretend that the world has ever been or ever will be free of evil, bad people, and tyrranical controlling governments, because your twisted little minds are only place it's ever going to happen.

When one single person or organization and their stooges want to be the only people with guns, my bullshiat detector goes completely bezerk.

Get out my life, leave my rights alone. Take your ivory towers and shove them up your collective self righteous you know whats.

It's not the guns that scare me. They're inanimate. It's the folks that write things like this that also own, usually, many guns that worry me.

I'm so afraid that I've never in my life felt the need to carry a gun for protection.

Submitter, the false equivalency you and all gun control advocates make is in assuming that taking away or restricing my right to own any type of gun will reduce mass murders committed by madmen using guns. It will not.

the_geek:Saners: I'm not kidding about the last part either. The article straight up says The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.

The reality is that some jackass made the news for killing a bunch of kids and people are acting as if low powered semi-automatic rifles are some new plague that is bringing about the end of times. The fact of the matter is that day is a statistical anomaly. A horrible, terrifying statistical anomaly, but one nonetheless. Your kids are not more or less safe at school than they were six months ago or six years ago. Actually, they're more safe today than they were six years ago since all forms of violent crimes, including gun crimes, have been on the decline for decades. 20 kids die of preventable accidents every day. It's sad, but it happens. We don't suddenly live in a world where we need armed guards at every school or peoples' constitutional rights need to be diminished. It happened, it's horrible, let's make sure we have a plan in place at your local school, perhaps enact policies such as auto-locking internal doors or something.

After 9/11 we did some smart things like reinforced cockpit doors. We also did some stupid things like warrantless wiretaps and feeling up grandmas at the airport. Let's all take a deep breath, take a moment to grieve, and make a sensible response to this tragedy.

Okay. Tax increases on all new sales, registration requirement on all guns, mandatory insurance for all firearms, and required training courses.

What's that? You're not actually interested in banless solutions? You just want to keep the status quo under the guise of "sensible response" when in reality you want "no response." I see.

Look, I'm sick of having this argument. It's not about lives, wait a min now, it's about how you perceive guns. You give no credence to those that believe we need weapons in defense of tyranny (blah blah drone strikes vs military history...I get it). You, reluctantly, try to spin the 2nd amendment to refer to hunting because of it. Many things kill more people than firearms every year, but because you see no need for weapons you single them out and treat gun owners as lepers. You base your arguments on emotion so it's just going to boil down to who has the most votes and your willingness to allow bloodshed to have your way.

/Basically, you're starting to bore me... either light the fuse on this powder keg or shut the fark up//I'd prefer the former///Blame the iPad for any typos

Because when you say "just over 12,000" it just doesn't sound as good as "just over 30,000". Far more than half of all gun deaths are self inflicted. To paraphrase a famous quote, would you feel any better if they had jumped out of windows?

"But... but... OTHER countries..."

Yes, we have more shootings than countries without guns. We also have more strangling, stabbing, and beating deaths too. You're free to speculate why the violent crime rate is so high here.

from my blood:I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...1) Used a bomb.2) Poisoned the water supply.3) Used a car to run through the playground.4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

The issue is not guns.If you were not so stupid, maybe one of you would find a solution to the violence.

Sadly, the 'political issue' outsmokes the gun/violence issue, its about getting elected now.

Gun control is logical. Not allowing the general public to purchase say rocket launchers or automatic weapons is logical. Banning "guns" in general is stupid. There is no solution to stopping violence. It isn't possible. How do you stop someone who does not fear death or any other consequences?

from my blood:I see more retards who think the violence will stop by banning some guns... ok then...

If he didn't have the gun he would have...1) Used a bomb.2) Poisoned the water supply.3) Used a car to run through the playground.4) Chopped them up with a machete like they do in china

Hmmm, no. If you're talking about the newest NRA hero Lanza, he was quite intent on using a gun. Even went to buy one then balked at the two week waiting list. Easier to just grab his retarded prepper mom's guns. Good thing she trained him to be responsible with firearms.

you have pee hands:The US has a higher murder rate with knives than the UK, too. We just like murder.

It's almost like there's some *other* factor in society which makes us more violent per capita. Something which creates more people on the margins of society for various reasons. Something which might impact the access to care that folks who are mentally unbalanced might need, or might keep milions of people more desperate and struggling to get by. What ever could it be...

Also, more people in the US died in meat processing accidents than with fully automatic M-16s. Thererfore, canned ham and hot dogs should be banned and confiscated and the M-16 should be made availabe to all patriotic American patriots.